Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 15, 2012 10:01am-10:31am PST

10:01 am
than the norm for not getting going on the permit. that does seem to me that it leaves a question in my mind as to the equities of not hearing this appeal, so that is where my thinking right now is. >> i would agree with that. we have been fairly liberal in these things. this is a situation where it is just a few days in a case where she obtained council, and there is an issue about the incorrect lot numbers. potentially that is an issue we do not maybe have announced information -- potentially that is an issue. we maybe do not have enough information. >> because of the long delay and that she was out of the country the permit was obtained over the
10:02 am
holidays. >> if we could amend that to read at least part of the time she was out of the country. >> when the permit was issued she was out of the country. but when it was approved, it was eight months earlier. >> commissioners, i will support that. i have made that same statement a number of times. >> on that motion, from the president to grant mr. restriction request. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. jurisdiction is granted, and a new five-day appeal period is created under our rules, which is this coming monday. >> is monday holiday? >> tuesday.
10:03 am
>> we will move on to 5b. this was issued on april 8, 2011. the appeal period ended and the request was received at the board office on december 12, 2011. the project is the construction of a single-family dwelling with 924 square feet of ground- floor area. we will start with the requestor. you have three minutes. >> a thank you and good evening. a little think you for your time this evening. -- thank you for your time this evening. i never thought i would be in
10:04 am
this situation and have never gone through a process like this. the reason i am asking for this jurisdiction request is i had an agreement in advance with my neighbor on for 48 diamond as to how idec would be built in the back of the building. i understood the impact of the building on my current home. we met several times and had several conversations during the winter of 2008, spring of 2009, spring of 2010 regarding the size and extent of the deck and the depths of the structure. and wanted to be proactive in handle this in a neighborly fashion up front. i agreed to support the project based on a mutual grievances that the set -- a good debt woulenabling me to have quiet
10:05 am
enjoyment of that area of my house. on april 8, there was a building permits issued. there was an appeal and i provided a letter to demonstrate my intent in support of the agreement and because of the mutual agreement we had as to how the deck would be built in the back of the property. on november 21 of this year, as i watched the building progress, i realize the building was not as we had agreed upon. i called my neighbor, she responded quickly and came to the site. we had a number of conversations. none of which would permit the situation. that agreement is what i based my support of this property on.
10:06 am
i have pulled a permit to do some work on my property. that was withdrawn in 2009. well my neighbor might use it at reference, that is currently extraneous to the issue of an agreement on how this property was to be built. i continue to support that, the building, not the way the rear is being built and impacting my quiet enjoyment, light, and air. i ask for the board to take a look at that and grant me a request for an appeal. >> you are not the requestor? >> i supported this. >> i wanted to be clear. thank you.
10:07 am
>> thank you. good evening. i am representing the owners of 448 diamond. this is where we believe this request should not be granted. if i may interject, commissioner garcia, the dr was based on demolition. she must demonstrate she could not file due to an inadvertent delays. she makes this claim nor is there any basis for such a claim. aside from the arm of fassi -- the findings, there is no underlying error in review, there is no procedural and justice, no change in the project.
10:08 am
from that described in the nullification and presented before the planning commission. without proper arguments to support her position, [unintelligible] this extension is not only smaller than the code allows but it is smaller than the extension originally supported in writing by the requestor. it was subsequently reduced in with to provide a five-foot side set back along the property line. it is 5 feet narrower than proposed. at 18 feet 8 inches above grade it is exactly the height depicted and dimensioned. her request is based on a
10:09 am
purported misunderstanding of the proposed height of this pop out. she said this occurred despite numerous discussions and despite her own design for a similar project on your property. adjacent to the neighbors. both parties agreed to an accord that involved construction on each property that comprised a rear main building at the 45% rear yard line. each property owner proposed an obstruction as permitted under section 136 c that extended beyond the wall. the pop out was to be one story high. the drawings showed both projects side by side. the abernathys are committed to
10:10 am
being good neighbors. it is unreasonable to lower a code compliant staff supported commission approved and legally project. we are here to answer any questions we have -- you have and we have some graphics that will give you a better detailed picture of the project. fo>> you are saying that the height of the deck has not changed? >> that is correct. i put a tape measure on it and it is built 18 feet 8 inches off grade. >> one of the photos that was provided shows the pop ballad -- pop out. is that where the deck will
10:11 am
protrude from? >> it is on the roof of the pop out. commissioner fung: it is on the -- >> thsi iis is the property and the existing debt and drilling. -- deck and railing. commissioner fung: is this the top of the pair pat? >> this is the top of the curve of the roof structure. there will be a railing 3 feet higher. >> for every dimension of that? , at every point is the same elevation or is this a sloped piece of property? >> i would like to defer that to the property owner.
10:12 am
it appeared to be level. the property is down sloping from the street which explains why there is a crawlspace beneath. >> i am trying to get an understanding, if there was a misunderstanding how that took place. >> the dec is level. from side to side. the elevation of the deck and the main floor is by the garage door. and in the front of the property to the base of the property. it drops 14 feet. if you go the distance, it is 18 feet, 8 inches above grade. >> at the lowest or the highest point? >> at the highest point. the entire deck is 18 feet 8 inches above grade.
10:13 am
>> do you have insight into how the misunderstanding might have taken place? >> when we had the conversation, there was an existing home on the property while we were having a discussion that was not demolished. it was difficult to see the slope and difficult to see how the home would be framed out. we did frame out the main building but not the deck portion. we were in flux with the planning department on the with of the deck. it was difficult to set the elevation points. we did not have the sightline from the front to the back of the property. commissioner fung: it did make sense. thank you.
10:14 am
>> enter department -- interdepartmental comment. >> i have a few comments and that was subject to discretionary review. there was a notice, no neighbor views were filed. there was a hearing and the requestor did submit a letter in support of the project and this -- no complaints have been filed with the building department related to the construction of the building. the most recent visit was regarding framing and that was in the middle of december. it is our understanding of the project does comply. i am available for any other questions. >> i have a question about the poles.
10:15 am
what do you think of a project's sponsor putting up story polls that do not represent the code -- spoke -- scope of the project. it is difficult for some of us to read plans, to rely on story polls as representative of what they might expect to see. >> it is not a requirement of the planning department nor is it enforced by the planning department's. we do not verify. we rely on plans, the accurate record of what the project will be. based on the testimony the jurisdiction requestor did have an architect. we have provided them plans of the project.
10:16 am
what? the department does not get involved? >> no. >> thank you. president goh: is there any public comment? >> what was the variants log? >> it was different set back variant. president goh: is there any public comment? seeing none of the matter is submitted. >> this is unfortunate. we do not have any evidence there was any intention on the project sponsor to deceive their neighbor. i do not think that was the case. i mean this respectfully. it is our responsibility when a project is taking place that we
10:17 am
think may affect our lives to go out and try to determine on our own with those dimensions will be and how it is going to look. we might want someone to look at it and sign off and say this is what iit is going to be like. i am sorry but nothing has been presented to us that should cause us to grant jurisdiction. >> i feel likewise sympathetic to the requestor. likewise disinclined to grant the request. >> if you look at the photos, it would have been hard to imagine from the story polls the deck on that roof would have been lower
10:18 am
than the appellant's deck or the jurisdiction requestor's deck. for whatever reason, the miscommunication occurred, it is unfortunate. but the time gap also is not convincing to me to take away the rights of the permit holder. i would suggest they turned to discussions on creating a screen and perhaps that would minimize some of the potential noise or light interactions between the parties. >> i agree. is there moshin, commissioners? >> i would move to deny. >> is that on the basis that there was no error on the part of the city? >> thank you.
10:19 am
>> if you could call the roll? >> we have a motion from the vice-president to deny jurisdiction. and the bases there was no error on the part of the city. commissioner fung, at ghaniaye. commissioner hwang, aye. commissioner go. president goh: welcome back. we are calling items 6a-6i. the appellant is sheila murphy.
10:20 am
dba is trabacco ristorante. and 107 is john isaacs, dba as ziggy's burgers. 109 is dba portico restaurant. 112 is carlos aguilar. these are -- the addresses are,
10:21 am
protesting the issuance granted. the permit number is -- all nine matters were heard and are on for further continuation. the permit holder was to seek certificate of sanitation for the second street vacation. i am going to give the parties a chance to speak of the wish on that item in particular. starting with the permit holder. two minutes each. the subject is limited to the introduction of new evidence with respect to the certificate of sanitation. >> i did review the issue and
10:22 am
read the recorded transcript. i am prepared to listen to today and rule. >> good evening. i submitted a bathroom form. with bk industries. i submitted the bathroom form for this location. i wanted to say that we did not intentionally withholding. it was not my intention to waste your time by having you have to postpone until now. we thought there were separate so we knew we had to obtain the bathroom forms before we would operate. we thought this is a dpw.
10:23 am
we wanted to make that clear. >> i know the date of the signature was december 29. this was not even executed as of the day of the hearing. >> that is true. we're here today because we could not uphold the location because we have not submitted a bathroom form to you. we're supposed to submit it to the health department. we thought there were separate. >> do you have the form you submitted prior to the hearing? >> we did not submit one. we thought it was separate. a separate process that we had to do before we served but not relative to the dpw permit. >> there has been some confusion about the process for when the
10:24 am
permit is issued and when the subsequent verifications are submitted by the permit holders. it is understandable there might be confusion about when this document was required. >> thank you. >> i had one question after listening to your representative and one of the statements made, you stated they were at the table. were they there for purposes of supporting the legislation or at the table for supporting this permit? >> what he meant is they were at the table when the legislation was crafted. >> do you know the position of the organization on your permit?
10:25 am
>> on our specific permit? they were here the other night so they would -- >> as golden gate restaurant association? >> i think he was. maybe he was not. >> i do not believe so. >> there are members from the appellants that are members of the association. as a group, if they came out in favor or against. we're trying to clarify some of the more ambiguous aspects of the legislation. >> i am talking about your permit. >> i do not know he has an opinion. >> my understanding was that golden gate restaurant association was at the table when the legislation was proposed and were not opposed to it. the individual who represented golden gate rep -- restaurant association is no longer with them and now robert black is
10:26 am
there and in some cases they might have had a difference of opinion about some issues having to do with food facilities. >> we will hear from the department. >> good evening. as noted by the applicant, the department received the bathroom information and we forded that two members of the board for review. this would satisfy the department said tension -- sanitation requirements. there is some confusion even within the department of the timing, as it relates to the timing for this board to heal
10:27 am
any -- hear any appeals specifically. there appears to be some confusion. we have since remedy that situation. i am here to answer additional questions you may have. >> does this location have the same problem as the other, withdrawn permits having to do with parking issues? >> currently, there is a working group being established from supervisor wiener's office. >> that would be in the future. i was wondering if right now it will be in violation. >> there has been no objections or comments related to the parking issue. i stated previously by the department, the permitees will
10:28 am
follow all regulations and specifically parking in traffic. it might be a window that we allowed the operate -- applicant to operate. >> as far as you know, there is not that issue in this one, or there may be but mta's position is the same? >> currently we do not have any information that this parking is an issue specifically. mta stated again and again they will enforce all parking regulations. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the appellants in order if they so choose. starting with the appellant for appeal no. 103. 104. 105. 106 -- 106.
10:29 am
>> hello, i am here on behalf of 106 and 109. i wanted to make sure we were clarified. also to thank you. i will not be here next week and i am in all of the people and amount of attention you are able to give. i have always appreciate your attention. >> thank you. is there anyone who would like to speak for appeal 1 07? 11111 or 11112? the matter is submitted.
10:30 am
president goh: is there an moshin? >> i have a comment. the reason i asked about the park at -- parking, although it would not have swayed me, there is no opposition. with no opposition i would leave it to mta and to the permit holder in this case to work that out and for his sake, i hope this works out smoothly. and he has a very successful operation at 651 second street. i would move that we approve that location. >> i echoed that address. 625.